Hi
> (a) attempt to remain neutral about whether people make up unofficial URIs,
>and rely on the owl:sameAs machinery to cope with multiple published URIs
>for the same concept, or ...
>
>
wordnet works great with the uris provided. I think dan brickley did
them, or?
Just make unofficial uris and use them.
Evolution will do the rest.
We may have to string-replace some uris in existing data sets, but that
is very ok facing the fate of:
endless discussions what an "official" uri is and NOT implementing
anything.
this is a typical semantic web problem: discussion about problems that
we do not have yet.
> (b) actively encourage the publication of these thesauri with concept nodes
>as blank nodes, and additionally publish guidelines on how reference by
>description may be used to refer to such concepts from other RDF
>descriptions (which may depend on rules technology without any current
>standard implementations).
>
>
bad bad bad.
IFPs (inverse functional properies) may be used in this scenario but
thats not the main idea and bad bad bad.
It makes "quick hacks" impossible and discourages people from
identifying things by uri.
if you read your own sentences you may note that this is walking on thin
ice. "guidelines" are not existing and even for IFP there is clue = zero
about how to use this big picture style.
Leo
>What do you think ???
>
>Al. ~:)
>
>
>---
>Alistair Miles
>Research Associate
>CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>Building R1 Room 1.60
>Fermi Avenue
>Chilton
>Didcot
>Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
>United Kingdom
>Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
>Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
>
>
>
>